If 2nd Amendment goes, so does 1st

Where does resistance to “curtailing gun mayhem” come from? It comes from certain groups on TV, radio, print and the Internet spewing their “outdated” ideas that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Perhaps to enact “reasonable” gun-control measures we must curtail the availability of this type of resistance. “In the days following the Sandy Hook tragedy, gun enthusiasts remained silent.” This silence could be maintained. If the Second Amendment is outdated, then perhaps the First is too. It reads: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ….”

We can reasonably believe the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the forms of speech that exist today. After all there was no radio, TV, or Internet back in 1791. In 2006, the USA had 4,789 AM and 8,961 FM broadcast radio stations and 2,218 TV stations. As of February 2011, the Internet had more than 156 million public blogs. Perhaps this is too much free speech.

Maybe we should limit non-progressive speech by preventing people and corporations from owning “assault broadcasts,” prohibiting high-capacity publishers, mandating one-radio-show- or blog-cast-a-month policies, and subjecting radio, TV, and blog-owners and journalists to personal mental health record background checks. These people should also (“obviously”) be registered with the government like car drivers.

The “minor changes” suggested here, could be “reasonable” ways of controlling free speech so that we can tackle “reasonable” gun control.